Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Universidade de Aveiro
Ano 2013
Departamento de Biologia
Marina Rafaela dos Santos Ferreira
Efeito da taxa de pressurização na
inativação de Listeria innocua
iii
Universidade de Aveiro
Ano 2013
Departamento de Biologia
Marina Rafaela dos Santos Ferreira
Efeito da taxa de pressurização na
inativação de Listeria innocua
Effect of pressurization rate on the
inactivation of Listeria innocua
Dissertação apresentada à Universidade de Aveiro para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Mestre em Biologia Aplicada, ramo de Microbiologia Clínica e Ambiental, realizada sob a orientação científica da Doutora Maria Ângela Sousa Dias Alves Cunha, Professora Auxiliar do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro, e coorientação do Doutor Jorge Manuel Alexandre Saraiva, Investigador Auxiliar do Departamento de Química da Universidade de Aveiro.
v
o júri
presidente Prof Doutor João António de Almeida Serôdio Professor Auxiliar do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro
vogais Profª Doutora Carla Alexandra Pina da Cruz Nunes (arguente) Professora Auxiliar Convidada da Secção Autónoma de Ciências da Saúde da
Universidade de Aveiro
Profª Doutora Maria Ângela Sousa Dias Alves Cunha
(orientadora) Professora Auxiliar do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro
Doutor Jorge Manuel Alexandre Saraiva (coorientador) Investigador Auxiliar do Departamento de Química da Universidade de Aveiro
vii
agradecimentos
À Professora Doutora Ângela Cunha, orientadora da tese, pela disponibilidade, apoio, confiança e sorriso perante os obstáculos. Ao Professor Doutor Jorge Saraiva, coorientador da tese, por
colaborar neste trabalho e por todas as ideias.
À Professora Doutora Paula Teixeira da Escola Superior de
Biotecnologia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa, pela
cedência da bactéria utilizada ao longo do trabalho.
À Ana Patrícia por me ter ajudado no início deste percurso e,
à Inês Baptista por toda a ajuda, paciência e disponibilidade.
À Sónia, pela boa disposição e troca de ideias.
À Carina e à Cris pela companhia, ajuda e animação durante
o tempo passado no laboratório e fora dele.
A todos os outros colegas do Laboratório de Microbiologia
Ambiental e Aplicada, pelo apoio e boa disposição.
Ao Rui Queirós, pela companhia durante as inúmeras
pressurizações, disponibilidade, paciência e boa disposição.
Aos meus pais e à minha irmã, por tornarem isto possível.
Ao meu namorado Hugo que sempre me apoiou.
ix
palavras-chave
Processamento por alta pressão, taxas de pressurização e despressurização, Listeria innocua, segurança alimentar.
resumo
O processamento por altas pressões possibilita a inativação de microrganismos a temperaturas sub-letais garantindo a preservação das propriedades organoléticas dos alimentos. No entanto, é necessário que sejam determinadas e estabelecidas as condições ótimas para uma inativação eficiente, nomeadamente no que respeita ao valor de pressão a ser aplicado, tempo de pressurização e temperatura. A taxa de pressurização pode ser também uma condicionante da eficiência de inativação. O presente trabalho teve como principal objetivo avaliar o efeito de diferentes taxas de pressurização na inativação de Listeria innocua. Para isso, culturas em fase estacionária em Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) foram sujeitas a diferentes taxas de pressurização até uma pressão de 300 MPa ou 400 MPa, aplicada durante 1 e 5 minutos, à temperatura ambiente. Adicionalmente foi também avaliada a recuperação das culturas microbianas após tratamentos com alta pressão (400 MPa e 500 MPa), quando armazenadas a temperatura de refrigeração (4 °C) e temperatura ambiente (25 °C) durante 1, 5 e 10 dias. A concentração de sobreviventes foi avaliada por contagem de colónias após sementeira por incorporação em meio Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) das diluições convenientes. O fator de inativação foi calculado como Log10 (N0/Ni). Os resultados mostram que existem diferenças no fator de inativação obtido com diferentes taxas de pressurização/despressurização, para tratamentos a 300 MPa durante 5 minutos. A inativação revelou-se significativamente mais eficiente com as taxas de pressurização e despressurização baixas (1,5 MPa s
-1 e
3,2 MPa s-1
, respetivamente). Não houveram diferenças significativas no fator de inativação obtido nas restantes condições testadas – 300 MPa durante 1 minuto e, 400 MPa durante 1 e 5 minutos. Os resultados referentes à recuperação da viabilidade das células após tratamento sub-letal a 400 MPa e tratamento letal a 500 MPa mostram recuperação completa da concentração inicial de células viáveis quando a cultura é armazenada a 25 °C. Nas culturas mantidas a 4 °C, após tratamento sub-letal o teor de células viáveis permanece estável, não havendo indícios de recuperação nem inativação tardia, pós-tratamento. Os resultados permitem concluir que para além do valor de pressão e do tempo de pressurização, a taxa de pressurização é um parâmetro relevante na eficiência de inativação de Listeria innocua e que o fator de inativação permanece estável até 10 dias de conservação a 4 °C.
xi
keywords High pressure processing (HPP), pressurization and depressurization rates, Listeria innocua, food safety.
abstract
High pressure processing (HPP) enables the inactivation of microorganisms to sublethal temperatures ensuring the preservation of the organoleptic properties of food. However, must be determined and established the optimum conditions for an efficient inactivation, namely as regards the pressure value to be applied, holding time, and temperature. The pressurization rate can also be a condition of efficiency of inactivation. The present study had as main objective to evaluate the effect of different rates of pressurization in the inactivation of Listeria innocua. For that, cultures in stationary phase of growth in Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) were subject to different pressurization rates up to a pressure of 300 MPa or 400 MPa, applied during 1 and 5 minutes, at room temperature. Additionally it was also evaluated the recovery of microbial cultures after treatments with high pressure (400 MPa and 500 MPa), when stored at chill temperature (4 °C) and room temperature (25 °C) for 1, 5 and 10 days. The concentration of survivors was evaluated by counting colonies after pour-plated in Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) of convenient dilutions. The inactivation factor was calculated as Log10 (N0/Ni). The results show that there are differences in the inactivation factor obtained with different pressurization/depressurization rates, to treatments at 300 MPa during 5 minutes. The inactivation has proven to be significantly more efficient with the low pressurization and depressurization rates (1.5 MPa s
-1 and 3.2 MPa s
-1,
respectively). There were no significant differences in the inactivation factor achieved in other conditions tested – 300 MPa during 1 minute, and 400 MPa during 1 and 5 minutes. The results concerning the recovery of cell viability after sublethal treatment at 400 MPa and lethal treatment at 500 MPa show full recovery of initial concentration of viable cells when the culture is stored at 25 °C. In cultures maintained at 4 °C, after sublethal treatment, the content of viable cells remains stable, with no evidence of recovery neither late inactivation, post-treatment. The results allow concluding that beyond the pressure value and holding time, the pressurization rate is a relevant parameter in the efficiency of inactivation of Listeria innocua and that the inactivation factor remains stable until 10 days of storage at 4 °C.
xiii
Índice
Figures .......................................................................................................................... xvii
Tables ........................................................................................................................... xvii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................xix
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Food safety ...............................................................................................................3
1.2 Food preservation .....................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Thermal food processing ....................................................................................4
1.2.2 Non-thermal food processing..............................................................................5
1.3 High pressure processing (HPP)................................................................................6
1.3.1 General principles of HPP ..................................................................................8
1.3.2 HPP Equipment ..................................................................................................9
1.3.3 Factor involved in the efficiency of HPP .......................................................... 10
1.4 Effects of HPP on microorganisms ......................................................................... 15
1.5 Recovery after HPP ................................................................................................ 18
1.6 Listeria innocua ...................................................................................................... 18
1.7 Objectives............................................................................................................... 20
2. Material and methods ................................................................................................... 21
2.1 Bacterial strain ........................................................................................................ 23
2.2 Characterization of growth kinetics in liquid medium and cellular viability tests ..... 23
2.3 High pressure processing (HPP).............................................................................. 24
2.3.1 Culture conditions and preparation of inocula ................................................... 24
2.3.2 Characterization of inactivation kinetics by HPP .............................................. 24
2.3.3 Inactivation by HPP with different pressurization rates and holding times ........ 26
2.3.4 Recovery of viability after HPP ........................................................................ 27
2.3.5 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................ 29
3. Results ......................................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Growth kinetics in liquid medium ........................................................................... 33
3.2 High pressure processing (HPP).............................................................................. 34
3.2.1 Characterization of inactivation kinetics at different pressure values................. 34
3.2.2 Effect of pressurization and depressurization rates and holding time................. 35
xv
3.2.3 Recovery of viability after HPP ........................................................................ 37
4. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 Characterization of growth kinetics in liquid medium ............................................. 43
4.2 Inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP ................................................................. 43
4.2.1 Pressure............................................................................................................ 44
4.2.2 Pressurization rate and holding time ................................................................. 45
4.2.3 Recovery test after HPP.................................................................................... 46
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 49
6. References ................................................................................................................... 53
xvii
Figures
FIGURE 1 - DIFFERENT SECTORS OF THE FOOD INDUSTRY IN WHICH IS USED HPP
PRESERVATION (EXTRACTED FROM HEINZ & BUCKOW, 2009). ......................................8
FIGURE 2 - SCHEME OF THE HIGH PRESSURE VESSEL (EXTRACTED FROM CHAPLEAU, ET AL.,
2006). ....................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 3 - DIFFERENT PROCESSING EFFECTS GIVEN THE PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE
CONDITIONS CHOSEN (EXTRACTED FROM ZHANG, ET AL., 2011). .................................. 11
FIGURE 4 – CELL STRUCTURES OF UNTREATED AND TREATED E. COLI (A’) AND S. AUREUS (B’)
UNDER TEM (EXTRACTED FROM YANG, ET AL. (2012). ................................................ 16
FIGURE 5 – A) HIGH PRESSURE EQUIPMENT (UNIPRESS EQUIPMENT, MODEL U33, POLAND).
B) DETAIL OF THE PRESSURIZATION VESSEL................................................................ 25
FIGURE 6 - GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF OD600 AND CONCENTRATION OF VIABLE CELLS
DURING 14 HOURS OF INCUBATION OF LISTERIA INNOCUA. ............................................ 33
FIGURE 7 – INACTIVATION FACTORS CALCULATED FOR THE PRELIMINARY TESTS OF
INACTIVATION OF LISTERIA INNOCUA BY HPP .............................................................. 34
FIGURE 8 - PRESSURIZATION AND DEPRESSURIZATION PROFILES AT 300 MPA (A) AND 400
MPA (B) OBTAINED IN ASSAYS OF INACTIVATION OF LISTERIA INNOCUA BY HPP .......... 36
FIGURE 9 - INACTIVATION FACTORS OBTAINED IN TESTS OF INACTIVATION OF LISTERIA
INNOCUA BY HPP WITH 300 MPA ............................................................................... 36
FIGURE 10 - INACTIVATION FACTORS OBTAINED IN TESTS OF INACTIVATION OF LISTERIA
INNOCUA BY HPP WITH 400 MPA ............................................................................... 37
FIGURE 11 - INACTIVATION FACTORS CALCULATED FOR THE RECOVERY TESTS OF LISTERIA
INNOCUA AFTER HPP AT PRESSURE VALUE OF 400 MPA .............................................. 38
FIGURE 12 - INACTIVATION FACTORS CALCULATED FOR RECOVERY TESTS OF LISTERIA
INNOCUA AFTER HPP AT PRESSURE VALUE OF 500 MPA .............................................. 39
Tables
TABLE I - HISTORY OF HPP FOR FOOD (ADAPTED FROM SAN MARTÍN, ET AL., 2002)..............7
TABLE II – CONDITIONS TESTED FOR LISTERIA INNOCUA INACTIVATION BY HPP. ................. 35
xix
Acronyms and Abbreviations
α Significance level
ANOVA Analysis of variance
ATP Adenosine Triphosphate
aw Water activity
CCP Critical control point
CFU Colony forming-units
CFU mL-1
Colony forming-units per milliliter
CO2 Carbon dioxide
E. coli Escherichia coli
FAD Food and Drug Administration
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GC content Guanine and cytosine content
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
HP High pressure
HPP High pressure processing
HTST High-temperature short-time
L. Listeria
LAB Lactic acid bacteria
NaCl Sodium chloride
NASA National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
NCTC National Collection of Type Cultures
OD Optical density
PEF Pulsed electric fields
S. aureus Staphylococcus aureus
S. enteritidis Salmonella enteritidis
S. typhimurium Salmonella typhimurium
SEM Scanning electron microscopy
TEM Transmission electron microscopy
TSA Tryptic Soy Agar
TSB Tryptic Soy Broth
UHT Ultra-high temperature
USA United States of America
UV Ultraviolet
UK United Kingdom
WHO World Health Organization
1. Introduction
3
1.1 Food safety
Over time and starting from the moment of harvest, foods lose their quality by
physical, chemical, microbiological, or enzymatic reactions. The main agents involved in
food deterioration are microorganisms and enzymes, being these key targets of
preservation techniques. Such techniques are used to prevent food spoilage and increasing
shelf life, as well as safety (Raso & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003).
In recent years, many technological advances have been achieved by the food
industry in relation to the control of pathogens of great importance to the sector. However,
despite of a high level of innovation in preservation techniques, the number of incidents
related to diseases transmitted by eating contaminated foods did not have an overall
decrease, and food-borne diseases are still regarded as one of the greatest public health
problems currently (Panisello & Quantick, 2001, Jofré, et al., 2009). For decades, the main
agents associated with food-related diseases were Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus,
Bacilus cereus and Clostridium botulinum. However, given the requirements of consumers
for fresh products in recent decades, other microorganisms emerged, namely Yersinia
enterocolitica, Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157
(Jofré, et al., 2009).
The high incidence of food-borne diseases combined with i) greater knowledge and
public awareness on the serious effects of food pathogens in human health and, ii) an
increase of production and industrialization which, consequently, takes an increased risk of
contamination of foods and increases the number of people exposed to the outbreak of such
diseases, leads to the need for a method that secures food safety (CAC, 1997). Foods are
considered safe when there is a low risk of harm to the consumer at the moment of
consumption and, when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its rules of use (Mensah &
Julien, 2011).
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach is the internationally
recognized strategy to ensure food safety. The Pillsbury Company, which collaborated
with NASA and the U.S. Army laboratories initially developed it, in order to ensure that
food sent in space programs were microbiologically safe. For this method to be effective, a
deep understanding of processes and products, must exist since it is based on the
identification of critical control points (CCP) throughout the production, distribution and
4
storage of food (Stringer, 2005, Stringer & Hall, 2007). CCP represent ‘step at which
control can be applied and is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or
reduce it to an acceptable level’ (CAC, 1997).
1.2 Food preservation
Pathogens present in raw materials may be partly or totally eliminated during
processing or preparation. Therefore, there is a greater demand for new processing
techniques that, at the same time, reduce the level of microbiological contamination and
increase the level of safety of food, without compromising the desirable properties of food
products. Currently, food preservation methods lead to the inactivation of microorganisms
and enzymes and/or inhibition of microbial activity and growth (van Schothorst, et al.,
2009).
An ideal method of food preservation should fulfill some requirements: (i)
extension of shelf life and safety by inactivating spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms;
(ii) preservation of organoleptic and nutritional attributes of food; (iii) do not leave
residues; (iv) inexpensive and convenient to apply; (v) not raise objections from consumers
and legislators (Raso & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003).
1.2.1 Thermal food processing
Traditional food processing methods frequently depend on the application of high
temperatures. Processing using heat ensures safe food production and increased shelf time,
once inactivate microorganisms and enzyme activity is reduced (Raso & Barbosa-Cánovas,
2003, Zhang, et al., 2011). However, exists many factors that conditioned the extent of this
impact, like properties of the microorganism, heat susceptibility of microbial strains and
food chemical composition (Miller, et al., 2009). Besides, this type of treatment may cause
undesirable changes in food properties that affect nutritional and organoleptic attributes.
Some of these changes are related to color and flavor given that many vitamins, as color
5
and flavor compounds, are degraded under heat treatments (San Martín, et al., 2002,
Morris, et al., 2007, Zhang, et al., 2011).
The two most common techniques used to process and preserve foods are thermal
pasteurization and thermal sterilization (Zhang, et al., 2011). The first technique is usually
used for high-acid food products (pH <4.6), and may also be used for low-acid food
products (pH > 4.6) followed by refrigeration. The second is the thermal treatment with
best results when applied to low-acid food products, it uses temperatures around 121 °C for
several minutes (Zhang, et al., 2011).
Several attempts of optimization of thermal processing in order to obtain a
maximum effectiveness against microorganisms, with minimal deterioration of the quality
of food have been made in the last decades. For example, processes such as high-
temperature short-time (HTST) pasteurization, that uses temperatures around 72 °C for 15
seconds, and ultra-high temperature (UHT) sterilization show less loss of vitamins in milk,
compared to the conventional methods of pasteurization and sterilization, respectively.
However, modern thermal technologies still cause changes in the texture and fresh flavor
of processed foods (Lado & Yousef, 2002, Zhang, et al., 2011).
1.2.2 Non-thermal food processing
Assumed the consumer demand for high-quality convenience food, particularly in
terms of natural aroma and flavor, as well as the absence of additives and preservatives,
there is a growing interest on innovative approaches to food processing (Zhang, et al.,
2011). Alternative technologies are occasionally designated as ‘non-thermal’ food
processing. Non-thermal food processing technologies aim to exert a minimal impact on
the nutritional, physic-chemical and sensory properties of food, at the same time that
extends shelf life. They use temperatures below the temperature typically used in thermal
processing so is expected a minimal degradation of food (Lado & Yousef, 2002, Raso &
Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003, Devlieghere, et al., 2004, Morris, et al., 2007).
Pulsed electric fields (PEF), ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation and high
pressure processing (HPP) are some of new non-thermal inactivation technologies
investigated. PEF treatment consists on the delivery of pulses at high electric field intensity
6
(5-55 kV cm-1
) for a short duration (1 – 100 μs) to a food sited between two electrodes
(Lado & Yousef, 2002, Mañas & Pagán, 2005). Ionizing radiation treatment consists on the
application of gamma rays from cobalt-60, electron beams or X-rays to foods. Electron-
beam technology is safer than gamma radiation, since this do not use radioactive isotopes
(Lado & Yousef, 2002, Mañas & Pagán, 2005). Ultraviolet (UV) energy is a non-ionizing
radiation that can inactivate microorganisms at wavelengths in the range of 200-280 nm
(Lado & Yousef, 2002). HPP treatment consists on the application of pressures of 100 to
1000 MPa to food (Mañas & Pagán, 2005).
As a major advantage over thermal processes, non-thermal processing, and
particularly HPP and irradiation, have the ability to inactivate/eliminate microorganisms at
ambient, chilling and freezing temperatures (Lado & Yousef, 2002, Mañas & Pagán,
2005).
1.3 High pressure processing (HPP)
High pressure processing (HPP) has been considered as a valid alternative to
conventional thermal pasteurization for the food preservation. Such confidence is due to its
potential for inactivation of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms and enzymes, while
keeping food chemistry intact, with minimal effects on taste, texture, appearance, or
nutritional value (San Martín, et al., 2002, Yang, et al., 2012).
Despite its use in the food areas has gained greater attention in the last decades, the
use of this technology dates back to the late 19th century (table I). In 1899, high pressure
was used to preserve milk, and subsequently extended to fruits and vegetables (Rastogi, et
al., 2007). Eighty years after these pioneer applications, Japan restarted the application of
HPP in food processing in 1990, by marketing a line of HP-treated jams, jellies, and sauces
packaged by Meidi-ya. From this date on, other countries followed the HPP to food
processing (Trujillo, et al., 2002, Rastogi, et al., 2007).
7
Table I - History of HPP for food (adapted from San Martín, et al., 2002).
Years Events
1895 Royer (France) used high pressure to kill bacteria
1899 Hite (USA) used high pressure to preserve food
1980-1989 Japan started the production of fruit juices and jams using HPP
1990-1999 Avomex (USA) started the production of guacamole using HPP, from avocados
with a shelf time prolonged and fresh flavor
2000
Europe began to produce and market fresh fruit juices (mostly citrus), and poultry.
The USA began to sell fruit juices, poultry, and oysters with easy opening shell
processed by HPP
2001 Approval of the sale of fruit juices, and fruit pieces processed by HPP in UK
In recent years, HPP has been shown to be commercially attractive given its
advantages. Because of the possibility to process food at ambient temperature or colder,
the instant transmittance of pressure through the system, the occurrence of microbial death
by without the use of heat or additives and preservatives, the possibility to create
ingredients with novel functional properties, and to conserve natural flavor and texture of
foods, HPP is regarded with growing interest (Rastogi, et al., 2007).
This technology in the food industry has been introduced gradually in several
countries, and it is now possible to find various HPP products on the market (Figure 1)
(Heinz & Buckow, 2009). HPP is used primarily in industries of vegetable and fruit
processing, inactivating spoilage microorganisms and enzymes, while ensuring the
organoleptic, sensory and nutritional qualities of these foods (Devlieghere, et al., 2004,
Rastogi, et al., 2007). Some of the most common products are fruit jellies, sauces, rice,
cakes and desserts, and guacamole (USA), being later packed after processing. HP-treated
sliced ham (Spain), packed before processing has a shelf time 3 to 8 weeks extended in
relation to the non-treated product (San Martín, et al., 2002). Fruit juices (France and
Portugal) and meat (Japan) are also being subjected to this method of processing (San
Martín, et al., 2002, Rastogi, et al., 2007). The use of HPP in oysters brought advantages
both in terms of the inactivation of microorganisms, and in the process of shell opening.
Oysters are preferentially consumed raw and are sometimes associated with outbreaks of
gastroenteritis caused by Vibrio spp.. The use of HPP increased the microbiological quality
8
and facilitated the opening of the bivalves, without any loss in terms of flavor or texture
(San Martín, et al., 2002, Rastogi, et al., 2007). In the processing of dairy products, HPP
has been used in milk-clotting processes. HPP of milk for cheese production reduce the
time of rennet formation, and accelerates cheese production by reducing the ripening time.
When used in animal products such as meat, HPP induces changes in muscle enzymes and
the proteolysis rates, leading to an improvement of its texture and structure (Devlieghere,
et al., 2004, Rastogi, et al., 2007).
Figure 1 - Different sectors of the food industry in which is used HPP preservation (extracted from Heinz & Buckow,
2009).
1.3.1 General principles of HPP
HPP can be classified as a cold pasteurization technique, a non-thermal food
preservation method that uses pressure – ‘force per unit area applied on a surface in a
direction perpendicular to this surface’ (Rivalain, et al., 2010) – to inactivate pathogens
and vegetative forms of spoilage microorganisms. At the same time, it increases shelf life
and retains the original features of food (Morris, et al., 2007). This technique can be used
in different types of food matrices, solid or liquid, to pressure values between 100 and
1000 MPa (1 MPa = 9.87 atm = 10 bar = 145 psi) in a range of temperature between -20
and 80 °C, and in variables times of application, from a few seconds to more than 20
minutes (San Martín, et al., 2002, Morris, et al., 2007).
9
There are two basic principles that govern HPP in the food industry: Le Chatelier’s
Principle and Isostatic Principle. During the pressurization, a decrease in food volume
occurs, being this reduction proportional to the pressure applied, and the food material
returns to its initial volume during decompression (Patterson, Ledward, & Rogers, 2006).
This effect follows Le Chatelier’s Principle, in which applying pressure promotes the state
of smaller volume, and accelerates processes that lead to transition state that assume a
smaller volume compared to the ground state (Oger & Jebbar, 2010). Besides that, pressure
is applied in an isostatic mode, i.e. the transmission of pressure occurs uniformly and
almost instantly through the food material regardless of its shape and size, providing that it
does not deform when subject to such conditions and that it returns to the original shape.
This feature makes this technique suitable for the inactivation of pathogens that are either
surface located, or imbed in the food matrix (Rastogi, et al., 2007, Neetoo, et al., 2011, de
Alba, et al., 2012).
1.3.2 HPP Equipment
Processing systems for high pressure treatment of food products are essentially
formed by a pressurization vessel (Figure 2), a system of pressurization, heating/cooling
systems and product handling devices (Devlieghere, et al., 2004).
The industrial equipment used in HPP can be discontinuous for solid, viscous and
particulated foods (batch processing), and semi-continuous for liquid foods (bulk
processing) (Devlieghere, et al., 2004).
Batch processing is the most common process in the food industry. In batch
treatments, the foods are pre-packaged and treated in a chamber surrounded by pressure-
transmitting fluid. HPP of solid foods starts with the removal of air from the food. This
initial procedure is essential to ensure that the work of compression is not wasted in the air
in the system. A typical process consists of loading the vessel with food to be processed,
and filling the remaining space of the vessel with pressure-transmitting fluid. The vessel is
closed and the process of pressurization begins by adding more pressure-transmitting fluid
by an intensifier until it reaches the desired pressure. After treatment, the vessel is
decompressed by releasing the fluid (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). There are several
10
pressure-transmitting fluids that can be used in laboratory pressure equipment, namely
water, castor oil, silicone oil, glycol-water mixtures, and sodium benzonate solutions
(Zhang, et al., 2011). HPP of liquid foods is identical to the one used to process solid foods
(Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008).
In bulk processing, the foods are submitted to pressure before packaging and are
aseptically packaged after pressurization (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). Exists two or
more pressure vessels in the equipment used for this processing method in order to
compress food. Initially, the pressure vessel is filled with liquid food to be processed.
Afterwards, the inlet valve is closed and the compression of food starts through the
introduction of pressure-transmitting fluid behind a free piston. After treatment the vessel
is decompressed and the treated liquid food can be transferred to sterile containers
(Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008, Zhang, et al., 2011).
Figure 2 - Scheme of the high pressure vessel from ACB pressure systems (extracted from Chapleau, et al., 2006).
1.3.3 Factor involved in the efficiency of HPP
HPP technology can be used for different treatments, such as food pasteurization,
sterilization, blanching, freezing and defrosting, depending on the chosen conditions
11
(Figure 3), i.e. the combination of pressure with temperature and/or atmosphere (Zhang, et
al., 2011).
Pasteurization by HPP inactivates spoilage and pathogenic bacteria, yeasts, and
molds, but it presents a limited effectiveness against spores and enzymes (Zhang, et al.,
2011). The level of bacterial inactivation depends on the type of microorganism, food
matrix composition, and pH, being necessary to choose the appropriate combined
treatment to obtain the best results of microbial inactivation and increased shelf life (Raso
& Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003, Zhang, et al., 2011).
Figure 3 - Different processing effects given the pressure-temperature conditions chosen. Filled symbols represent no
effect, and open symbols represent inactivation. Vegetative bacteria, yeast, and mold (□), bacterial spores (○), and
enzymes (∆) (extracted from Zhang, et al., 2011).
1.3.3.1 Food matrix
The composition of the food substrate can affect the level of inactivation of
microorganisms by HPP. The implementation of this method can inactivate
microorganisms, or modify the properties of food, being essential to consider both the
effects during the optimization of processing conditions (Doona & Feeherry, 2007). For
example, the reduction of E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes is different when subject
12
to the same conditions of processing, but in different substrates. In both cases it was
observed a greater resistance to pressure when the organisms were treated in UHT milk
than in buffer solution or poultry meat (Patterson, et al., 1995). Microbial inactivation can
also be conditioned by the pH and water activity (aw) of food, and the results presented by
different authors are contradictory. In general, microorganisms are more sensitive to
pressure in lower pH environments, and pressure-damaged cells survive less in acidic
environments. This represents an opportunity for the HPP treatment of fruit juices, in that
even microorganisms survive the pressure treatment, for example E. coli O157:H7, they
are damaged and die during cold storage due to the characteristics of the environment, i.e.
acid conditions (Linton, et al., 1999). However, contrary results have been obtained, and
different strains of Enterobacteriaceae are less sensitive to HPP inactivation in low pH
environments (Raso & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003, Doona & Feeherry, 2007).
1.3.3.2 Temperature
HPP can be combined with temperature for best results. Vegetative cells of bacteria
have a greater resistance to pressure at temperatures between 20 and 30 °C. Resistance
decreases when the pressure is combined with heat, even at non-lethal temperatures. This
combination allows a considerable inactivation, over 6 log, to lower pressures, and the
variation in pressure resistance among the strains is lower than that observed in the
combination of HPP with room temperature. Vegetative cells of yeasts and molds,
however, are very sensitive to treatments by HPP at room temperature (Raso & Barbosa-
Cánovas, 2003).
During treatment, compression and decompression may result in a transient
temperature change in the product to be processed (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). There
may be a variable increase in the temperature of the product, depending on the composition
of the product substrate. Generally, the application of high temperatures leads to an
increase of approximately 3 °C per 100 MPa (Morris, et al., 2007, Rastogi, et al., 2007).
However, this increase can be as high as 8-9 °C per 100 MPa, in foods with significant
amounts of fat, such as butter and cream. During decompression these cooled resuming its
initial temperature (Rastogi, et al., 2007).
13
1.3.3.3 Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has antimicrobial effect that increase when is applied under
pressure. The combination of HPP with CO2 was tested in natural flora and spoilage as
well as in pathogenic microorganisms, but others parameters such as time, temperature, aw,
and pH, have to be considered in this combination. An increase in temperature and/or
pressure combined with a decrease in pH improves the antimicrobial effect. However, a
low aw decreases the inactivation efficiency (Ballestra & Cuq, 1998).
There are different suggestions for the mechanism behind microbial inactivation
using CO2, namely, the quick release following compression and the transference of a
larger number of molecules of CO2, during pressurization, through the membrane reducing
de internal pH, which can affect key enzymes (Nakamura, et al., 1994, Garcia-Gonzalez, et
al., 2007).
1.3.3.4 Antimicrobials
Given the consumer demand for food free of additives and preservatives, food
industry searches for natural alternatives. Several natural antimicrobial compounds
produced by animals, plants and microorganisms, have been investigated. Examples of
these compounds are lactoperoxidase present in milk, lysozyme present in egg white and
figs, saponins and flavonoids present in herbs and spices, bacteriocins produced by lactic
acid bacteria (LAB), and chitosan from shrimp shells (Devlieghere, et al., 2004). Most of
natural antimicrobial compounds have a restricted antimicrobial spectrum, directed
towards a small group of microorganisms, and often restricted to Gram-positive bacteria
(García-Graells, et al., 2000).
Bacteriocins represent a huge and diverse group of ribosomally synthetized
extracellular antimicrobial proteins or peptides with bacteriostatic or bactericidal effect.
The most studied bacteriocins are nisin (Lactococcus lactis), pediocin (Pediococcus
acidilactici), and sakacins (Lactobacillus sakei) (Devlieghere, et al., 2004). Nisin was
recognized as a food preservative by FAO/WHO in 1969 (FAO/WHO, 1969), and is the
14
only preservative approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the
food industry. These group of natural antimicrobial compounds are being combined with
non-thermal methods, such as HPP, to increase food safety, once HPP by itself may not be
a safe pasteurization process due to development of high levels of baroresistance in certain
vegetative cells of bacteria (Gallo, et al., 2007).
1.3.3.5 Pressurization and depressurization kinetic
The influence of different pressurization and depressurization rates on inactivation
of several microorganisms has been studied and discussed, but contradictory results and
conclusions persist (Hayakawa, et al., 1998, Smelt, 1998, Rademacher, et al., 2002). Some
authors assumed that a low compression rate induces a stress response from microbial
cells, and consequently leads to a lesser effective process, i.e. a lower microbial
inactivation (Smelt, 1998). Complementary, a high decompression rate might induce a fast
adiabatic expansion of water generating an impulsive force that combining with
pressurization would result in higher inactivation effect than pressurization alone
(Hayakawa, et al., 1998, Noma, et al., 2002). Also, yeasts would be more sensitive to fast
depressurization than vegetative bacteria, because of the existence of vacuoles in their cells
(Smelt, 1998).
The effect of pressurization and depressurization rates on inactivation of
Salmonella typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes (Chapleau, et al., 2006), Escherichia
coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio parahaemolyticus and S. typhimurium (Noma, et al.,
2002), Bacillus stearothermophilus spores (Hayakawa, et al., 1998), and Listeria innocua
(Rademacher, et al., 2002) has been studied. Chapleau, et al. (2006) observed the most
significant reduction of microorganisms when they were exposed to a fastest
pressurization/depressurization kinetic parameters. Hayakawa, et al. (1998) and Noma, et
al. (2002) described that fast depressurization was more effective than slow
depressurization treatment in inactivating bacterial spores and vegetative bacteria,
respectively. In your turn, Rademacher, et al. (2002) do not find statistically significant
differences on inactivation of L. innocua using two processes, namely fast pressurization
15
(500 MPa min-1
) and slow depressurization (100 MPa min-1
), and the reverse, i.e. slow
pressurization (100 MPa min-1
) and fast depressurization (500 MPa min-1
).
1.4 Effects of HPP on microorganisms
When applied at room temperature, HPP can inactivate vegetative cells and certain
enzymes. However, the responses to pressure differ from microorganism to
microorganism. Generally, it is easier inactivate organisms more complex and with larger
cell size (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). The less resistance microorganisms are
vegetative bacterial cells, followed by yeasts and molds, viruses, and finally bacterial
endospores, which are the most resistant structures (Doona & Feeherry, 2007,
Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008).
Depending on the composition of the cell wall and the growth phase of vegetative
cells, the resistance to pressure may vary considerably. Gram-positive bacteria are more
resistant than Gram-negative cells, and in stationary phase, cells are more resistant than in
exponential phase (Doona & Feeherry, 2007, Zhang, et al., 2011). In stationary phase
bacteria can synthesize proteins that confer them protection against adverse conditions
such as oxidative stress, high salt concentrations, and high temperature (Doona &
Feeherry, 2007).
In studies with pathogenic microorganisms, such as Listeria monocytogenes,
Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella typhimurium, large differences in
results have been observed, with reductions from 0.5 to 8.5 log units. Besides, differences
between strains belonging to the same genus or specie have been reported too (Rendueles,
et al., 2011). This variability may be related with differences in growth phase.
Many studies have attempted to enlighten the mechanisms involved in the
inactivation and death of vegetative bacterial cells by HPP. It is known that this technique
can damage membranes, affect homeostasis, alter the morphology of the cell, and denature
and inactivate proteins (Zhang, et al., 2011). Cell membrane is considered the first site of
damage in bacteria inactivated by pressure. This damage was confirmed by scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) observations, in which bud scars on surface of pressurizes
cells have been observed (Rivalain, et al., 2010). Through SEM it was also possible to
16
observe an increase in average cell area and volume in Staphylococcus aureus and
Escherichia coli. These alterations can be justified by modifications of membrane
properties, such as denaturation of membrane-bound proteins, decrease in membrane
potential and cellular ATP content, and/or phase transition of the lipid bilayer of membrane
(Pilavtepe-Çelik, et al., 2008, Rivalain, et al., 2010).
Figure 4 – Cell structures of untreated E. coli (a) and S. aureus (b), and 500 MPa for 30 min treated E. coli (a’) and S.
aureus (b’) under TEM (extracted from Yang, et al. (2012).
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images confirmed morphological
modifications in S. aureus and E. coli (Figure 4). When cells were treated with low
pressure, they keep distinct membrane and cell wall, but when submitted to high pressure
(500 MPa) breakdown of the peptidoglycan layer and an aggregation of cytoplasmatic
material occur (Yang, et al., 2012).
Most yeasts and molds are relatively sensitive to pressure, being inactivated when
exposed to 300-400 MPa at room temperature, but ascospores are more resistant, requiring
treatments at higher pressures (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). Some authors have
compared ascospores with vegetative cells, and observed that the former were found to be
5 to 8 times more resistant to pressure. Besides, it was shown that HPP instead of
inactivating, can activate and induce germination of ascospores (Zhang, et al., 2011).
17
Viruses can present a wide range of pressure resistance but can generally be
inactivated in the same conditions as those used to inactivate bacteria (Balasubramaniam,
et al., 2008). Some human viruses are relatively sensitive to pressure, while poliovirus and
picornavirus are very resistant, being inactivated by less than 1 log at 600 MPa during 1 h.
Others, such as feline calicivirus, are completely inactivated at 275 MPa during 5 minutes.
Inactivation of these microorganisms seems to be more dependent on the pressure applied
than on the time during which it is applied (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008, Zhang, et al.,
2011). Usually, naked viruses are more resistant to the pressure than enveloped viruses.
Depending on the pressure, HPP can denature capsid proteins in an irreversible or
reversible way or damage the envelope, while keeping viral nucleic acids intact. These
injuries are responsible by incapacity of viruses for cell binding and infection initiation
(Rendueles, et al., 2011, Zhang, et al., 2011).
Bacterial spores can be extremely resistant to pressure, requiring more aggressive
conditions than vegetative cells, namely higher pressure, higher temperature, and longer
holding times. Some endospores can be resistant to pressures above 1000 MPa at room
temperatures. Among pathogenic spores, Clostridium botulinum is the most resistant to
pressure and for nonpathogenic species, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens produces the most
resistant endospores (Balasubramaniam, et al., 2008). However, at low pressure (60 to 100
MPa) HPP can induce spore germination, being this process temperature dependent. This is
due to electrostriction, this implicates a decreased volume affected by the high electric
field of the ion that influence the orientation of water molecules causing a collapse of the
water structure, that allows core hydration, triggering the germination process. After that,
spores can be inactivated at higher pressures (San Martín, et al., 2002). It has been
demonstrated that the sensitivity of germinated spores to subsequent stresses is affected by
the pressure used to induce germination. For example, Bacilus subtilis spores were more
sensitive to pressure inactivation, and others treatments, such us UV light and hydrogen
peroxide, when spores germinated at 100 MPa comparatively with spores germinated at
500 MPa (Wuytack, et al., 1998).
To inactivate spores directly, HPP has been combined with several antimicrobials,
such as bacteriocins, sucrose laurate, and citric acid (Zhang, et al., 2011).
18
1.5 Recovery after HPP
HPP is a technique already used for food processing. However, as important as
understanding the mechanisms involved in the inactivation of microorganisms is to know if
after being subjected to high pressures, microorganisms can recover viability and grow
during storage.
Some authors suggest that microorganisms suffer sublethal damage that can be at
the level of i) cytoplasmatic membrane – structural damage or, ii) intracellular components
– physiological damage. These damages can be reversed if the cells are stored in
conditions advantageous to recovery and growth (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997, Bull, et al.,
2005, Han, et al., 2011). The storage temperature can influence the inactivation/recover of
microorganisms, as well as the temperature of growth before processing and the media
used in the recovery (Bull, et al., 2005).
L. monocytogenes fails to recover during storage in milk at 4 and 30 °C (Bull, et al.,
2005), but on the contrary, when stored at 15 °C, a full recovery occurs after 14 days. Low
levels of recovery have been observed for L. innocua and psychrotropic bacteria during
long chilling times (30, 60 or 120 days) (Yuste, et al., 1999, Garriga, et al., 2004). These
results go against the observed in previous studies (Yuste, et al., 1998), in which a loss in
ability to grow at low temperatures by psychrotrophics microorganisms, as is the case of L.
monocytogenes was observed. In other studies, a decreased of pH during the storage at
chilling temperatures was detected, suggesting that the inability to recover during storage
at chilling temperatures are related with a low pH (Han, et al., 2011).
1.6 Listeria innocua
The genus Listeria is composed of short rods with 0.4–0.5 μm of diameter and 1.2
μm of length, usually appear singly or in short chains. Can be classified like Gram-positive
bacteria, however, with time cells can lose their ability to retain stain. Belonging to the
family Listeriaceae, this genus is closely related to the genera Bacillus, Clostridium,
Enterococcus, Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. Listeria spp. are facultative anaerobic
bacteria with no capsule, low GC content, and do not produce spores (Hain, et al., 2006,
19
Hain, et al., 2007, Nufer, et al., 2007). These microorganisms grow at temperatures
between 0 and 45 °C, but their optimum temperature for growth is between 30 and 37 °C
(Nufer, et al., 2007). Cells are motile at 10-25 °C due to the presence of two or six
peritrichous flagella that gives them a characteristic movement – tumbling motility. The
absence of flagella at 37 °C is essential for a full virulence, in case of pathogenic species
like L. monocytogenes (Vos, et al., 2009). These bacteria have the ability to grow in high
concentrations of salt (10% NaCl) and at pH values between 4.5 and 9. This genus entails
six species: L.monocytogenes, L.ivanovii, L.innocua, L.grayi, L.welshimeri and L.seeligeri.
Only the first two species are pathogenic. L.monocytogenes causes opportunistic infections
in humans and animals, and L.ivanovii is essentially responsible for infections in animals
(Vázquez-Boland, et al., 2001, Hain, et al., 2006).
Listeria can be isolated from several environmental sources, in particular soil,
water, plants, feces, meat, fish, dairy products and decaying plant matter, being decaying
plant matter their natural habitat and, at the same time, the vehicle of transmission to the
vertebrate host (Vázquez-Boland, et al., 2001, Hain, et al., 2006). Given the ubiquity of the
genus, it can also be found in facilities and equipments involved in the processing and
storage of foods, which gives them a great importance on public health (Hain, et al., 2006,
Nufer, et al., 2007). Some strains are able to survive for long periods under hostile
conditions and persist in food processing equipments, due to its ability to form biofilms on
several surfaces (Todd & Notermans, 2011).
L. innocua, is a non-pathogenic species that has been often used as a surrogate for
the pathogenic L. monocytogenes in biological studies, since presents similar responses to
chemical or thermal treatments, and occurs in the same natural environments (Gleeson &
O’Beirne, 2005, Gallo, et al., 2007, Miller, et al., 2009).
L. monocytogenes is a food pathogen responsible for an opportunistic infection
called listeriosis (Nufer, et al., 2007). Several food products have been involved in
outbreaks caused by this pathogen, a major source is raw material (Todd & Notermans,
2011). Soft cheese, fruits and vegetables, and cooked meat were considered of special risk.
However, there are others products that are considered of low risk and that have been
connected to listeriosis transmission, such as corn (Aguado, et al., 2004, Gleeson &
O’Beirne, 2005). In short, listeriosis outbreaks are caused by consumption of ready-to-eat
dairy and meat products (Bull, et al., 2005).
20
The infections by Listeria present several clinical symptoms as meningitis,
meningoencephalitis, septicaemia, abortion, prenatal infection and gastroenteritis (Hain, et
al., 2007). Human listeriosis is caused, in about 99%, by the consumption of contaminated
foods. Despite an occurrence as low as 2-15 cases per million population per year, the
mortality is high, about 20-30%, in infected patients, especially in pregnant women, elderly
and immunocompromised patients (Hain, et al., 2006, Hain, et al., 2007, Carvalheira, et
al., 2010).
1.7 Objectives
The main purpose of this work was assess the importance of the rate of
pressurization as a parameter determining the efficiency of inactivation of Listeria innocua
by HPP, in order to contribute to the definition of efficient inactivation protocols. For that,
Listeria innocua was submitted to slow, intermediate, and fast pressurization, followed by
a constant pressure – 300 and 400 MPa-, during a pre-established holding time – 1 and 5
minutes. In addition, recovery after pressurization at the conditions for which best
inactivation results were achieved, was also evaluated.
2. Material and methods
23
2.1 Bacterial strain
For this study a strain of Listeria innocua (10528, National Collection of Type
Cultures, UK; NCTC, courtesy of Escola Superior de Biotecnologia da Universidade
Católica Portuguesa, Porto) was used. The initial culture was inoculated in Tryptic Soy
Agar (TSA, Liofilchem®
) and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h, in order to be obtained isolated
colonies for later use in the preparation of new cultures in liquid medium. The cultures
were maintained on TSA plates and stored at 4 °C, and streaked monthly from these
stocks. An isolated colony was also inoculated in 50 mL of Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB,
Liofilchem®
) and incubated overnight at 37 °C with continuous agitation at 170 rpm in an
orbital shaker (Optic Ivymen System), for subsequent cryopreservation in 20% sterile
glycerol and storage at -80 °C.
2.2 Characterization of growth kinetics in liquid medium and cellular viability
tests
The characterization of growth kinetics in liquid medium was performed in order to
allow the standardization of experimental procedure to adopt in the high pressure
inactivation experiments. This procedure made it possible to ensure that cultures subject to
HPP were in equivalent growth phase (stationary phase). In order to characterize growth in
the experimental conditions adopted, the growth curve was constructed.
An isolated from a TSA plate was inoculated in TSB, and incubated during 20 h at
37 °C with continuous agitation at 170 rpm. After incubation, 50 μL of culture was
transferred to 50 mL of TSB previously placed to 37 °C, allowing the culture to adapt more
quickly to the new environment and accelerating growth, and incubated in the same
conditions. For the characterization of growth kinetics, 200 μL of later culture was
transferred to 200 mL of TSB previously placed to 37 °C. This fresh culture was incubated
in the same conditions of the previous. Bacterial growth was evaluated by the optical
density at 600 nm (OD600). For that, 2 mL aliquots were collected hourly and transferred to
disposable cells (VWR®) for the measurement of OD600, on a spectrophotometer
(Dynamica Halo DB-20 UV-Vis Double Beam Spectrophotometer), using non-inoculated
24
TSB as blank. Samples with OD600>1 were diluted with TSB (1:1) and the readings were
corrected for the dilution factor.
In parallel with OD600 readings, an aliquot of the culture was serially diluted in
Ringer solution (Merck Millipore) and pour-plated in duplicate in TSA. Plates were
incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and colonies were counted in the plates of the most suitable
dilution. The values of the two replicates were averaged and corrected for the dilution
factor for the calculation of the concentration of colony forming-units (CFU mL-1
).
Three independent growth curves were constructed in the same experimental
conditions and the values were averaged for the graphic representation of the growth curve.
2.3 High pressure processing (HPP)
2.3.1 Culture conditions and preparation of inocula
For each high pressure experiment, an isolated single colony was inoculated in 50
mL of TSB, incubated during 20 h at 37 °C with continuous agitation at 170 rpm. From
this culture, an aliquot of 200 μL of culture was transferred to 200 mL of TSB previously
placed to 37 °C. This second culture was incubated in the same conditions of the first
during the time estimated as corresponding to stationary phase (12 h), as inferred from the
growth curves previously constructed.
2.3.2 Characterization of inactivation kinetics by HPP
In order to set out the most adequate conditions of pressurization for the strain of L.
innocua used in this study, different values of pressure (100 MPa, 200 MPa, 300 MPa, 400
MPa, 500 MPa, and 600 MPa) were applied during 5 minutes at room temperature. The
results of these assays were used to elect the most suitable pressure for further inactivation
experiments.
Before the treatments, OD600 of the culture confirmed that the bacterial culture was
in the same growth phase (OD600 ≈ 1.6), and aliquots of 100 μL were taken for the
25
determination of concentration of viable cells in the culture (N0). For that, the culture
aliquots were serially diluted in Ringer solution (Merck Millipore) and pour-plated in TSA,
in triplicate. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and colonies were counted in the
replicates of the most suitable dilution. The concentration of viable cells (CFU mL-1
) was
determined from the average of the replicates, corrected for the dilution factor.
Meanwhile, the culture was maintained in melting ice, and distributed in
pressurization microtubes (Microtube PE 0.5 mL Beckmann), previously sterilized with
bleach, ethanol, and ultraviolet irradiation (UV). The microtubes were completely filled
and hermitically capped, in order to avoid air bubbles. The microtubes were arranged in
groups of 3, covered in parafilm (Parafilm®) and put into plastic bags that were filled with
sterile water, sealed, and kept in melting ice until 10 minutes before pressurization.
For each experimental condition, two plastic bags, with three microtubes each, were
loaded into the pressurization vessel of high pressure equipment (Unipress Equipment,
Model U33, Poland) (Figure 5), and submitted to pressure. The pressure holding time
reported did not include the pressurization and depressurization times. For these initial
experiments, the pressurization rate was set to the medium value as well as
depressurization rate.
Figure 5 – A) High pressure equipment (Unipress Equipment, Model U33, Poland). B) Detail of the pressurization
vessel.
26
The high pressure equipment used for this work is a 2006 model with a 35 mm
diameter and 100 mm height pressurization vessel with a maximum capacity of 100 mL. It
can achieve pressure up to 700 MPa, at a temperature range between -20 °C and 100 °C.
Besides allows the application of different pressurization and depressurization rates, yet the
choice of these rates cannot be done digitally, i.e. it is possible to control them manually
but they must be calculated.
The pressure transmitting fluid was a mixture of 60% water and 40% propylene
glycol (DOWCAL™, Dow). This fluid has an antifreeze action, which inhibits the
formation of ice when making pressurizations at lower temperatures and during
depressurization when temperature can drop to negative values.
After pressurization, the bags were kept in melting ice until processing of the
samples. Cell suspension from each pressurized microtube was serially diluted in Ringer
solution (Merck Millipore), and each dilution (from each sample/microtube) was pour-
plated in TSA, in triplicate. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and colonies were
counted in the replicates of the most suitable dilution. The concentration of viable cells
(CFU mL-1
) was determined from the average of the replicates, corrected for the dilution
factor.
The inactivation factor (IF) was calculated as the logarithmic reduction of the
concentration of viable cells using the expression IF=log10 (N0/Ni), in which N0 represents
CFU mL-1
in the initial culture (untreated control) and Ni represent the value of CFU mL-1
after HPP. Three independent assays were conducted for each experimental condition and
the average IF was calculated for graphic representation.
2.3.3 Inactivation by HPP with different pressurization rates and holding times
In order to evaluate the influence of pressurization and depressurization rates in the
efficiency of inactivation of L. innocua, bacterial cells were submitted to slow,
intermediate, and fast pressurization and depressurization. Two different values of
pressure, 300 MPa and 400 MPa, were applied during 1 or 5 minutes at room temperature.
The OD600 of the stationary phase culture was checked and aliquots of 100 μL were
taken for the determination of concentration of viable cells in the culture (N0). For that, the
27
culture aliquots were serially diluted in Ringer solution (Merck Millipore) and pour-plated
in TSA, in triplicate. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and colonies were
counted in the replicates of the most suitable dilution. The concentration of viable cells
(CFU mL-1
) was determined from the average of the replicates, corrected for the dilution
factor.
Meanwhile, the culture was maintained in melting ice, and distributed in
pressurization microtubes (Microtube PE 0.5 mL Beckmann), previously sterilized with
ultraviolet irradiation (UV). The sterilization method of microtubes has been changed
comparing with the procedure used in characterization of inactivation kinetics by HPP.
This change due to the possibility of the microtubes still contain ethanol when the culture
is transferred to them, what affect the results, since ethanol leads to cell death. The
microtubes were completely filled and hermitically capped, in order to avoid air bubbles.
The microtubes were arranged in groups of 3, covered in parafilm (Parafilm®) and put into
plastic bags that were filled with sterile water, sealed, and kept in melting ice until 10
minutes before pressurization.
For each experimental condition, two plastic bags, with three microtubes each, were
loaded into the pressurization vessel of high pressure equipment and submitted to pressure.
In these experiments, three different pressurization and depressurization rates were tested.
They were calculated by dividing constant pressure value to be tested by the time it took to
reach that pressure (pressurization rate), and to release the pressure (depressurization rate),
being the rate given by MPa s-1
.
The concentration of viable cells in treated samples was determined like in
untreated cells, and the IF associated to each experimental condition was calculated as
previously described. Three independent assays were conducted and the average was
calculated for graphic representation.
2.3.4 Recovery of viability after HPP
In order to check a possible recovery of Listeria innocua after being pressurized,
cells were treated in the conditions that cause the highest sublethal effect (400 MPa) and
lethal effect (500 MPa), during 5 minutes at room temperature.
28
Before the treatments, OD600 of the culture was confirmed that the bacterial culture
was in the same growth phase, and aliquots of 100 μL were taken for the determination of
concentration of viable cells in the culture (N0). For that, the culture aliquots were serially
diluted in Ringer solution (Merck Millipore) and pour-plated in TSA, in triplicate. The
plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and colonies were counted in the replicates of the
most suitable dilution. The concentration of viable cells (CFU mL-1
) was determined from
the average of the replicates, corrected for the dilution factor.
Meanwhile, the culture was maintained in melting ice, and distributed in
pressurization microtubes (Microtube PE 0.5 mL Beckmann), previously sterilized with
ultraviolet irradiation (UV). The microtubes were completely filled and hermitically
capped, in order to avoid air bubbles. The microtubes were arranged in groups of 3,
covered in parafilm (Parafilm®) and put into plastic bags that were filled sterile water,
sealed, and kept in melting ice until 10 minutes before pressurization.
Two plastic bags, with three microtubes each, were loaded into the pressurization
vessel of high pressure equipment and submitted to conditions that satisfied the purpose of
these assays. This step was replicated. After pressurization, the bags were transferred to
melting ice until processing.
A composite treated sample was obtained by combining in one single tube, the
content of twelve microtubes. From the composite sample, an aliquot of 100 μL was taken
for the determination of the concentration of viable cells (CFU mL-1
) as previously
described. The remaining of the composite-sample was equally distributed by 6 microtubes
that were stored at 4 °C (3 microtubes) or at 25 °C (3 microtubes) when value of pressure
tested was 400 MPa. When pressurization was performed at 500 MPa a composite treated
sample was obtained by combining in one single tube, the content of six microtubes. From
the composite sample, an aliquot of 100 μL was taken for the determination of the
concentration of viable cells (CFU mL-1
). The remaining of the composite-sample was
equally distributed by 3 microtubes that were stored at 25 °C.
After 1, 5 and 10 days, the concentration of viable cells (CFU mL-1
) was
determined as previously described. Cell suspension stored at 4 °C and 25 °C were serially
diluted in Ringer solution and pour-plated in TSA, in triplicate, being each microtube a
replicate. All the plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C before colony enumeration. CFU
mL-1
was determined from the average of the replicates, considering dilution factor.
29
Inactivation factor (IF) was calculated as previously described. Three independent assays
were conducted for each experimental condition and the average IF was calculated for
graphic representation.
2.3.5 Statistical analysis
Normality was checked by the Shapiro-Wilk test and homogeneity of variances by
the Levene test. When these assumptions were confirmed ANOVA was performed to
assess the differences between tested conditions, and whenever significant differences
were detected, the Tukey’s post-hoc test was applied. When normality was not observed,
the significance of the differences was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test. The level of
significance was set to 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the IBM SPPS
Statistics 20.
3. Results
33
3.1 Growth kinetics in liquid medium
The growth curve of Listeria innocua in experimental conditions used in this work
(cultivation in TSB and incubation at 37 °C with orbital agitation at 170 rpm) is
represented in figure 6. Lag phase was undistinguishable, and exponential phase occurred
for 8-9 hours. Stationary phase was generally reached within 9 hours of incubation. The
variation of Optical Density 600 nm (OD600) and the concentration of viable cells varied in
parallel during exponential phase and in early stationary phase. However, there was some
decoupling between optical density and the concentration of viable cells in later stationary
phase. The correlation between OD600 and content of viable cells for the initial ten hours
was calculated, resulting in a R2 = 0.9446.
Once the intended was that the bacteria was found in the stationary phase, and
based on growth kinetics represented below, the cultures were left to growth 12 hours until
being submitted to HPP.
Figure 6 - Graphic representation of OD600 and concentration of viable cells during 14 hours of incubation of Listeria
innocua in TSB at 37 °C with continuous agitation at 170 rpm. Error bars represent the standard deviation.
1,E+05
1,E+06
1,E+07
1,E+08
1,E+09
1,E+10
1,E-03
1,E-02
1,E-01
1,E+00
1,E+01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CFU
mL
-1
OD
60
0
Incubation time (h)
Growth curve of Listeria innocua
OD600 UFC mL-1
34
3.2 High pressure processing (HPP)
3.2.1 Characterization of inactivation kinetics at different pressure values
The preliminary tests of HPP were performed in order to characterize the kinetics
of inactivation with different pressure values. Pressures between 100 and 600 MPa were
tested with a constant holding time of 5 minutes, and pressurization at room temperature.
The values of the inactivation factor (IF) of L. innocua corresponding to pressures of 100
MPa, 200 MPa, 300 MPa, 400 MPa, 500 MPa and 600 MPa are represented in figure 7. As
expected, the IF increased with the value of pressure. Inactivation to the detection limit (IF
> 9 log) was achieved with 400 MPa. The inactivation factors calculated for 100 and 200
MPa were the lowest (0.26 ± 0.29 log and 0.57 ± 0.48 log, respectively) and were not
significantly different (P>0.05). At 300 MPa, the IF was 4.36 ± 0.07 log. ANOVA analysis
confirmed significant differences between the IF calculated for treatments with 200, 300
and 400 MPa (P<0.05). Multiple comparisons show significant differences between all IF
obtained with these three pressure values (Tukey test).
Figure 7 – Inactivation factors calculated for the preliminary tests of inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP at pressure
values of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 MPa. Columns represent the average inactivation factor calculated for three
independent assays and error bars represent the standard deviation. * indicates statistically significant differences
(P<0.05).
0
2
4
6
8
10
100 200 300 400 500 600
Inac
tiva
tio
n fa
cto
r
Pressure (MPa)
Inactivation factors calculated for different pressure values
*
*
*
35
For the subsequent inactivation experiments, the pressure of 300 MPa was selected
as representing the strongest of sublethal effect, and the pressure of 400 MPa was used as
the minimum pressure to obtain complete inactivation of L. innocua.
3.2.2 Effect of pressurization and depressurization rates and holding time
With the aim of evaluating the influence of the rates of pressurization and
depressurization on the inactivation of L. innocua, three different pressurization rates were
tested, in combination with 1 and 5 minutes of holding time. The values of the
pressurization and depressurization rates calculated for each experimental condition are
presented in table II. There were small differences between experiments but overall, the
low pressurization rate was 1.5-1.6 MPa s-1
, the medium pressurization rate was 6.4-6.9
MPa s-1
and the high pressurization rate was 10.7-11.9 MPa s-1
. The variation of pressure
during the assays at 300 and 400 MPa is represented in figure 8.
Table II – Conditions tested for Listeria innocua inactivation by HPP.
Kinetic parameters (MPa s-1
)
Pressure values (MPa) Pressurization rate Depressurization rate
300
1.5 3.2
6.4 12.9
10.7 21.0
400
1.6 3.8
6.9 14.8
11.9 23.8
The IF values calculated for treatments with 300 MPa are represented in Figure 9.
At 300 MPa, the IF for 1 minute of holding time were < 1 and was not significantly
different between the different pressurization/depressurization rates (ANOVA, P>0.05).
However, for 5 minutes of holding time, there were statistically significant differences
(ANOVA, P<0.05) in the values of IF corresponding to different pressurization rates. Post-
36
hoc test allows infer that IF obtained with a low pressurization/depressurization rates is
significantly different from those obtained with the other two rates tested. However, there
are no differences in inactivation between an intermediate and a high
pressurization/depressurization rates. The maximum, although not complete, inactivation,
was obtained with low pressurization/depressurization rates (3.17 ± 0.49 log).
Figure 9 - Inactivation factors obtained in tests of inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP with 300 MPa. Columns
represent the average of results obtained in three independent treatments, with three replicate for each pressurization rate
tested, and error bars represent the standard deviation. * indicates statistically significant differences (P<0.05)
0
1
2
3
4
1 5
Inac
tiva
tio
n fa
cto
r
Holding time (minutes)
Inactivation factors with different pressurization/depressurization rates
low rate intermediate rate high rate
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 200 400 600
Pre
ssu
re (M
Pa)
Time (s)
400 MPa
Low Intermediate High
Low Intermediate High
0
100
200
300
400
0 200 400 600
Pre
ssu
re (M
Pa)
Time (s)
300 MPa
Low Intermediate High
Low Intermediate High
Figure 8 - Pressurization and depressurization profiles at 300 MPa (A) and 400 MPa (B) obtained in assays of
inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP. Solid lines represent tests with a holding time of 5 minutes, and dashed lines
represent tests with a holding time of 1 minute.
A B
*
*
*
37
The IF factors calculated for treatments with 400 MPa are represented in Figure 10.
Contrary to what occurred at 300 MPa pressurization/depressurization rates did not have a
significant effect (ANOVA, P>0.05) on the IF of L. innocua at 400 MPa, with 1 or 5
minutes holding time. The maximum IF value obtained was 8.26 ± 1.17 log with high
pressurization/depressurization rates and 5 minutes of holding time.
Figure 10 - Inactivation factors obtained in tests of inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP with 400 MPa. Columns
represent the average of results obtained in three independent treatments, with three replicate for each pressurization rate
tested, and error bars represent the standard deviation.
3.2.3 Recovery of viability after HPP
HPP can be used like a non-thermal food processing technique, for that reason it is
important evaluate if L. innocua can recover after pressurization, during storage. Recovery
tests were performed after submitting bacteria to 400 MPa, with high
pressurization/depressurization rates and a holding time of 5 minutes. Treated samples,
were stored at 4 °C or 25 °C during 1, 5 and 10 days. The calculated inactivation factors
are presented in figure 11. As expected, storage temperature significantly affected the
recovery of viability of L. innocua after sublethal HPP treatment. Storage at 25 °C caused
an almost complete recovery of the culture (Kruskal-Wallis, P<0.05). Immediately after
treatment, the IF was calculated as 6.91 ± 0.14 log, but after 10 days of incubation at 25 °C
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 5
Inac
tiva
tio
n fa
cto
r
Holding time (minutes)
Inactivation factors with different pressurization/depressurization rates
low rate intermediate rate high rate
38
the IF was reduced to 0.28 ± 0.38 log. During storage at 4 °C for 10 days, there was not
significant re-growth. The initial IF of 6.91 ± 0.14 log, calculated immediately after
treatment was slightly increased to 7.16 ± 0.32 log after 10 days of storage in the cold, a
difference that is not statistically significant (ANOVA, P>0.05).
Figure 11 - Inactivation factors calculated for the recovery tests of Listeria innocua after HPP at pressure value of 400
MPa, with a high pressurization rate and a holding time of 5 minutes. Columns represent the average of results obtained
in three independent assays for each storage day tested, and the error bars represent the standard deviation. * indicates
statistically significant differences (P<0.05)
In addition, recovery after complete inactivation at 500 MPa was also tested. In this
case, storage was only conducted at 25 °C. The inactivation factor calculated immediately
after pressurization was 8.30 ± 0.95 log. However, the surviving cells that could not be
detected immediately after the treatment grew during the incubation at 25 °C. In this
culture, the IF calculated after 10 days of storage (1.05 ± 0.14 log) corresponded to an
almost complete recovery. Similarly to what happened after the treatment with 400 MPa,
the recovery was detected after the first day and IF values are significantly different
(Kruskal-Wallis, P<0.05) during the recovery period.
0
2
4
6
8
4 25
Inac
tiva
tio
n fa
cto
r
Storage temperature (°C)
Recovery of Listeria innocua after sublethal HPP treatment during storage
Day 0 Day 1 Day 5 Day 10
*
*
* *
39
Figure 12 - Inactivation factors calculated for recovery tests of Listeria innocua after HPP at pressure value of 500 MPa,
with a high pressurization rate and a holding time of 5 minutes. Columns represent the average of results obtained in
three independent treatments, with three replicate for each storage day tested, and error bars represent the standard
deviation. * indicates statistically significant differences (P<0.05)
0
2
4
6
8
10
25
Ina
ctiv
ati
on
fact
or
Storage temperature (°C)
Recovery of Listeria innocua after lethal HPP treatment during storage
Day 0 Day 1 Day 5 Day 10
* *
*
4. Discussion
43
4.1 Characterization of growth kinetics in liquid medium
Bacteria present a characteristic growth curve in which four distinct phases can be
distinguished: lag phase, exponential phase, stationary phase and death phase. In this work,
because of the conditions created to initiate growth very quickly, lag phase was almost
indistinguishable. Cultures inoculated in new medium were quite fresh (≈ 20 hours)
without being submitted to long storage periods, being therefore very viable and ready to
initiate growth (Hogg, 2005). In addition, the composition of the culture medium was
constant, and the new medium was pre-heated to 37 °C before inoculation, so that
temperature changes would not occur. Consequently, cells entered in exponential phase
almost immediately.
Bacterial cells are more resistant to stress factors in stationary phase comparatively
with exponential phase. For this work, stationary phase Listeria innocua cells were used in
order to represent a state of greater resistance to pressure (Doona & Feeherry, 2007,
Zhang, et al., 2011). From the observation of the growth curve, the beginning of stationary
phase was estimated to occur approximately after 9 hours of incubation. Cultures to be
used in HPP assays were incubated for 12 hours to ensure full stationary phase. The
decoupling between OD600 and the concentration of viable cells observed in later stationary
phase may be due to some changes in the cellular morphology with aging. Logarithmic
death phase was also not observed because incubation was interrupted after 14 hours and at
this moment, cultures were still in exponential phase.
4.2 Inactivation of Listeria innocua by HPP
HPP has been shown to be an effective method for inactivation of vegetative cells
at several temperatures. In this work, pressurization for inactivation of L. innocua was
conducted at room temperature envisaging the application of this approach as a non-
thermal preservation method. Similarly, it represents a “worst-case-scenario” because
bacterial cells are more resistant to pressure when applied at temperatures between 20 °C
and 30 °C (Alpas, et al., 2000, Raso & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2003, Buzrul, et al., 2008).
44
4.2.1 Pressure
The efficiency of HPP is determined by the pressure applied, as well as by the
holding time to which microorganisms are subjected. In general, the efficiency of bacterial
inactivation increases with pressure and holding time (Yuste, et al., 1999, Rendueles, et al.,
2011). In the preliminary tests conducted, L. innocua was treated at room temperature with
different pressure values and a fixed holding time of 5 minutes. As expected, the
inactivation efficiency expresses as the IF, increased with increasing pressure until a
plateau of complete inactivation was reached.
The inactivation of vegetative forms of bacteria can reach values above 4 log when
treatments are carried out at pressures between 400 and 600 MPa at room temperature
(Devlieghere, et al., 2004). However, large differences in inactivation levels of foodborne
vegetative pathogens are observed, namely between S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, E. coli,
S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium (Alpas, et al., 2000).
The levels of inactivation observed in tests performed in this work is in accordance
with the values obtained for L. innocua (Alpas, et al., 1998, Buzrul, et al., 2008,
Gudbjornsdottir, et al., 2010, Evrendilek & Balasubramaniam, 2011). The differences
observed in several works with this species may be attributed to difference in the
conditions of pressurization, and in the matrix in which microorganisms are inoculated.
The range of inactivation for L. innocua varies between from 1-1.5 log in smoked salmon
treated with 400/500 MPa (Gudbjornsdottir, et al., 2010), and 2 to 6 log in TSB treated
with 325 to 400 MPa (Saucedo-Reyes, et al., 2009).
From the results obtained in this work, 300 MPa was initially chosen as
representative of the conditions for sublethal inactivation, and therefore, more convenient
to experimentally assess the effect of other parameters on the final outcome of the HPP
protocol, expressed in terms of the calculated inactivation factor. However, during the
sequence of inactivation experiments, there was a decrease of the IF obtained at 300 MPa,
with 5 minutes of holding time and medium pressurization/depressurization rates, with an
IF from the preliminary tests of 4.36 ± 0.07 log and from the subsequent tests of 1.32 ±
0.24 log. This may indicate a decreased in the sensitivity of the strain of L. innocua to
pressure that could be due the repeated cycles of cultivation-conservation in the cold of the
inocula used to produce the fresh cultures before each pressurization assay. Some cold-
45
adaptation might have occurred, and the cold adapted cells selected might also have some
enhanced resistance to pressure. For that reason, subsequent tests with different
pressurization rates were also carried out at 400 MPa, which in the preliminary tests has
caused complete inactivation of the culture.
4.2.2 Pressurization rate and holding time
In addition to pressure and holding time, the efficiency of inactivation by HPP can
be influenced by the pressurization and/or depressurization rates used. In this work,
different pressurization rates – low, medium and high – were tested. Because of limitations
of the equipment, depressurization rates were manipulated in the same way and therefore, a
fast pressurization was accompanied by fast depressurization and when pressurization was
slow, depressurization was also slow. In addition, 1 and 5 minutes of holding time were
also tested, allowing the evaluation of the pressurization/depressurization rates and holding
time on the efficiency of Listeria innocua inactivation at 300 MPa and 400 MPa.
IF calculated to 300 MPa treatments, for 1 minute, show that there were no
significant differences in inactivation between the different rates of
pressurization/depressurization. However, when holding time was extended to 5 minutes,
there were significant differences in the calculated IF indicating that slow pressurization
and depressurization increase the inactivation efficiency in relation to medium and high
pressurization/depressurization rates, for equivalent pressure and holding time. These
results apparently contradict some results that indicate that slow pressurization leads to
lower inactivation, since microbial cells can activate stress response mechanisms (Smelt,
1998). Also, it has been proposed the inactivation efficiency is more affected by
depressurization rate than by pressurization rate, and that efficiency of inactivation
increases if high depressurization rate are used (Noma, et al., 2002, Chapleau, et al., 2006).
However, it is not possible establish a direct comparison, because these works were made
with different bacterial species and at higher pressures once that have the aim of obtain
maximum inactivation. On the other hand, this work was made with the purpose of
evaluate the influence of pressurization/depressurization rates, so lower pressure was
applied.
46
As previously mentioned, IF values obtained with the medium pressurization rate
(the same used in the first set of preliminary tests) with 5 minutes of holding time were
lower than those obtained in preliminary tests indicating that the batch culture may have
developed some resistance to pressure during repeated storage at 4 °C. The same happened
in the assays with 400 MPa, in which the expected complete inactivation did not occur.
IF calculated for treatments with 400 MPa did not indicate significant differences
between different pressurization/depressurization rates, for holding times of 1 or 5 minutes,
contrary to what was observed for treatments with 300 MPa. Although the difference was
not significant, the highest IF corresponded to fast pressurization/depressurization.
The holding time has a significant effect, on the inactivation efficiency, part icularly
in the treatments with 300 MPa. The inactivation factor with 5 minutes was 8 times higher
than with 1 minute for slow pressurization/depressurization, 3 times for intermediate
pressurization/depressurization, and approximately 4 times higher for high rates of
pressurization and depressurization. However, the increase in pressure seems to have a
strongest effect on the inactivation efficiency than the increase in holding time. Still, there
is slightly differences in the rates of pressurization/depressurization at 300 Ma and 400
MPa that do not allow check if 1 minute at 400 MPa caused a strongest inactivating effect
than 5 minutes at 300 MPa.
4.2.3 Recovery test after HPP
HPP is a method that can be applied to food processing for the inactivation of
pathogenic microorganisms. However, in addition to the assessment of the inactivation
efficiency of a particular HPP in terms of the reduction of the concentration of viable cells
in the sample, it is also important to understand if recovery from sublethal damage in
treated cells will occur during storage in refrigerated or room temperature conditions, or
even if, on the contrary, damaged cells will ultimately be completely inactivated in the
post-treatment period.
L. innocua, used in this work, is a surrogate of L. monocytogenes, a foodborne
pathogen, because it presents similar features, so can also be used to evaluate the possible
recovery of L. monocytogenes after processing of food. For these assays, the experimental
47
HPP conditions selected were those causing the highest sublethal inactivation: 400 MPa
during 5 minutes with high pressurization/depressurization rates. IF was calculated at day 0
(6.91 ± 0.14 log) immediately after treatment, and treated samples were stored , at 4 °C or
at 25 °C during 1, 5 and 10 days.
During storage at 4 °C there the IF values remained fairly constant indicating that
the treated culture failed to recover and reinitiate growth. The results of this work confirm
previous information that L. innocua and L. monocytogenes cells remain inactive during
long chilling times, failing to recover at this storage temperature after high pressure
treatment (Yuste, et al., 1998, Yuste, et al., 1999, Bull, et al., 2005).
On the other hand, during storage at 25 °C there was an almost complete recovery
indicating that some damaged bacteria may have recovered or that some scarce cells
persisted although their concentration was below the detection limit of the culture-
dependent approach followed. After 10 days at 25 °C, the concentration of viable cells in
the treated cultures was very similar to the initial concentration and IF values were close to
zero (0.28 ± 0.58 log).
For these assays also selected the experimental HPP conditions that cause lethal
inactivation: 500 MPa during 5 minutes with high pressurization/depressurization rates.
After the development of some rare persistent cells is confirmed by the results obtained in
samples treated with 500 MPa, which caused inactivation to the detection limit (8.30 ±
0.95 log). After recovery at 25 °C the inactivation factor almost observed for null such has
as observed in the cell suspensions treated with 400 MPa.
The fact that there is recovery after HPP when samples are stored at 25 °C suggests
that L. innocua may be sublethally injured when submitted to high pressure, as proposed
for L. monocytogenes in other studies (Ritz, et al., 2002, Bull, et al., 2005). Data suggest
that the recovery may happen in two phases. Initially the membrane is repaired and, in a
second phase there is a physiological damage repair (intracellular components). This
theory rejects the hypothesis that cells are able to repair the damage done by HPP when
stored at 4 °C, which is in agreement with the results data obtained in this work. The
second phase could only happen at incubation temperatures above 15 °C, with a complete
repair of physiological damage, allowing bacterial to grow rapidly (Bull, et al., 2005). This
theory, despite lack of proven research and data, seems to be a valid explanation for what
has been observed in these recovery tests, at 400 and 500 MPa.
5. Conclusion
51
From the results of this work, it is possible to conclude that depending on the
pressure applied and on the holding time, the pressurization/depressurization rates may or
may not be a relevant parameter in determining the inactivation efficiency.
The application of a low pressurization rate followed by high pressure at 300 MPa
during 5 minutes, and a low depressurization rate, lead to enhanced inactivation of Listeria
innocua in comparison with the other condition tested at this relatively low pressure. At
400 MPa, that initially inactivated the test strain to the detection limit, the
pressurization/depressurization rates did not have a significant effect on the final
inactivation factor.
Increasing holding time also increase the inactivation efficiency. However, for the
rather short holding times tested in this study (1 and 5 minutes), pressure seems to have a
greater relative effect than holding time.
The assessment of the eventual recovery of viability of treated cells during storage
indicated that if stored at refrigerator temperatures L .innocua does not recover and cannot
grow, and therefore the concentration of viable cells remains stable. However, if stored at
25 °C, there is a complete recovery independently of the HPP (400 or 500 MPa). This
implies that even in the cases in which inactivation of the pathogen to the detection limit is
achieved with a suitable HPP protocol, the condition in which the product is stored after
treatment are of the outmost importance in the extension of shelf life and in the
preservation of food quality.
6. References
55
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Comission) (1997) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) system and guidelines for its application. Annex to the Recommended
International Code of Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene, CAC/RCP 1-1969,
Rev. 3-1997. Secretariat of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, FAO,
Rome.
Aguado V, Vitas AI & Garcia-Jalon I (2004) Characterization of Listeria monocytogenes
and Listeria innocua from a vegetable processing plant by RAPD and REA. International
Journal of Food Microbiology 90: 341-347.
Alpas H, Kalchayanand N, Bozoglu F & Ray B (1998) Interaction of pressure, time and
temperature of pressurization on viability loss of Listeria innocua. World Journal of
Microbiology & Biotechnology 14: 251-253.
Alpas H, Kalchayanand N, Bozoglu F & Ray B (2000) Interactions of high hydrostatic
pressure, pressurization temperature and pH on death and injury of pressure-resistant and
pressure-sensitive strains of foodborne pathogens. International Journal of Food
Microbiology 60: 33-42.
Balasubramaniam VM, Farkas D & Turek EJ (2008) Preserving foods through high-
pressure processing. Food Technology Magazine 62: 32-38.
Ballestra P & Cuq J-L (1998) Influence of pressurized carbon dioxide on the thermal
inactivation of bacterial and fungal spores. LWT - Food Science and Technology 31: 84-
88.
Bull MK, Hayman MM, Stewart CM, Szabo EA & Knabel SJ (2005) Effect of prior
growth temperature, type of enrichment medium, and temperature and time of storage on
recovery of Listeria monocytogenes following high pressure processing of milk.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 101: 53-61.
Buzrul S, Alpas H, Largeteau A & Demazeau G (2008) Inactivation of Escherichia coli
and Listeria innocua in kiwifruit and pineapple juices by high hydrostatic pressure.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 124: 275-278.
56
Carvalheira A, Eusébio C, Silva J, Gibbs P & Teixeira P (2010) Influence of Listeria
innocua on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 21: 1492-1496.
Chapleau N, Ritz M, Delépine S, Jugiau F, Federighi M & de Lamballerie M (2006)
Influence of kinetic parameters of high pressure processing on bacterial inactivation in a
buffer system. International Journal of Food Microbiology 106: 324-330.
Cheftel JC & Culioli J (1997) Effects of high pressure on meat: A review. Meat Science
46: 211-236.
de Alba M, Montiel R, Bravo D, Gaya P & Medina M (2012) High pressure treatments on
the inactivation of Salmonella enteritidis and the physicochemical, rheological and color
characteristics of sliced vacuum-packaged dry-cured ham. Meat Science 91: 173-178.
Devlieghere F, Vermeiren L & Debevere J (2004) New preservation technologies:
Possibilities and limitations. International Dairy Journal 14: 273-285.
Doona CJ & Feeherry FE (2007) High pressure processing of foods. Institute of Food
Technologists Press Blackwell Publishing.
Evrendilek GA & Balasubramaniam VM (2011) Inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes
and Listeria innocua in yogurt drink applying combination of high pressure processing
and mint essential oils. Food Control 22: 1435-1441.
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on food additives (1969) Specifications for identity and
purity of some antibiotics. Twelfth Report. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 430.
Gallo LI, Pilosof AMR & Jagus RJ (2007) Effective control of Listeria innocua by
combination of nisin, pH and low temperature in liquid cheese whey. Food Control 18:
1086-1092.
Garcia-Gonzalez L, Geeraerd AH, Spilimbergo S, et al. (2007) High pressure carbon
dioxide inactivation of microorganisms in foods: The past, the present and the future.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 117: 1-28.
57
García-Graells C, Valckx C & W. Michiels C (2000) Inactivation of Escherichia coli and
Listeria innocua in milk by combined treatment with high hydrostatic pressure and the
lactoperoxidase system. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66 (10): 4173-4179.
Garriga M, Grèbol N, Aymerich MT, Monfort JM & Hugas M (2004) Microbial
inactivation after high-pressure processing at 600 MPa in commercial meat products over
its shelf life. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 5: 451-457.
Gleeson E & O’Beirne D (2005) Effects of process severity on survival and growth of
Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua on minimally processed vegetables. Food Control
16: 677-685.
Gudbjornsdottir B, Jonsson A, Hafsteinsson H & Heinz V (2010) Effect of high-pressure
processing on Listeria spp. and on the textural and microstructural properties of cold
smoked salmon. LWT - Food Science and Technology 43: 366-374.
Hain T, Steinweg C & Chakraborty T (2006) Comparative and functional genomics of
Listeria spp. Journal of Biotechnology 126: 37-51.
Hain T, Chatterjee SS, Ghai R, et al. (2007) Pathogenomics of Listeria spp. International
Journal of Medical Microbiology 297: 541-557.
Han Y, Jiang Y, Xu X, Sun X, Xu B & Zhou G (2011) Effect of high pressure treatment on
microbial populations of sliced vacuum-packed cooked ham. Meat Science 88: 682-688.
Hayakawa I, Furukawa S, Midzunaga A, et al. (1998) Mechanism of inactivation of heat-
tolerant spores of Bacillus stearothermophilus IFO 12550 by rapid decompression.
Journal of Food Science 63: 371-374.
Heinz V & Buckow R (2009) Food preservation by high pressure. Journal of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety.
Hogg S (2005) Essential Microbiology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Jofré A, Aymerich T, Grèbol N & Garriga M (2009) Efficiency of high hydrostatic
pressure at 600 MPa against food-borne microorganisms by challenge tests on
convenience meat products. LWT - Food Science and Technology 42: 924-928.
58
Lado BH & Yousef AE (2002) Alternative food-preservation technologies: efficacy and
mechanisms. Microbes and Infection 4: 433-440.
Linton M, McClements JMJ & Patterson MF (1999) Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7
during storage in pressure-treated orange juice. Journal of food protection 62: 1038-1040.
Mañas P & Pagán R (2005) Microbial inactivation by new technologies of food
preservation. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98: 1387-1399.
Mensah LD & Julien D (2011) Implementation of food safety management systems in the
UK. Food Control 22: 1216-1225.
Miller FA, Gil MM, Brandão TRS, Teixeira P & Silva CLM (2009) Sigmoidal thermal
inactivation kinetics of Listeria innocua in broth: Influence of strain and growth phase.
Food Control 20: 1151-1157.
Morris C, Brody AL & Wicker L (2007) Non-thermal food processing/preservation
technologies: a review with packaging implications. Packaging Technology and Science
20: 275-286.
Nakamura K, Enomoto A, Fukushima H, Nagai K & Hakoda M (1994) Disruption of
microbial cells by the flash discharge of high-pressure carbon dioxide. Bioscience,
biotechnology, and biochemistry 58: 1297-1301.
Neetoo H, Nekoozadeh S, Jiang Z & Chen H (2011) Application of high hydrostatic
pressure to decontaminate green onions from Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7.
Food Microbiology 28: 1275-1283.
Noma S, Shimoda M & Hayakawa I (2002) Inactivation of vegetative bacteria by rapid
decompression treatment. Journal of Food Science 67: 3408-3411.
Nufer U, Stephan R & Tasara T (2007) Growth characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes,
Listeria welshimeri and Listeria innocua strains in broth cultures and a sliced bologna-
type product at 4 and 7 °C. Food Microbiology 24: 444-451.
Oger PM & Jebbar M (2010) The many ways of coping with pressure. Research in
Microbiology 161: 799-809.
59
Panisello PJ & Quantick PC (2001) Technical barriers to Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP). Food Control 12: 165-173.
Patterson MF, Quinn M, Simpson R & Gilmour A (1995) Sensitivity of vegetative
pathogens to high hydrostatic pressure treatment in phosphate-buffered saline and foods.
Journal of food protection 58: 524-529.
Pilavtepe-Çelik M, Balaban MO, Alpas H & Yousef AE (2008) Image analysis based
quantification of bacterial volume change with high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Food
Science 73: M423-M429.
Rademacher B, Werner F & Pehl M (2002) Effect of the pressurizing ramp on the
inactivation of Listeria innocua considering thermofluiddynamical processes. Innovative
Food Science & Emerging Technologies 3: 19-24.
Raso J & Barbosa-Cánovas GV (2003) Nonthermal preservation of foods using combined
processing techniques. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 43: 265-285.
Rastogi NK, Raghavarao KSMS, Balasubramaniam VM, Niranjan K & Knorr D (2007)
Opportunities and challenges in high pressure processing of foods. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition 47: 69-112.
Rendueles E, Omer MK, Alvseike O, Alonso-Calleja C, Capita R & Prieto M (2011)
Microbiological food safety assessment of high hydrostatic pressure processing:
A review. LWT - Food Science and Technology 44: 1251-1260.
Ritz M, Tholozan JL, Federighi M & Pilet MF (2002) Physiological damages of Listeria
monocytogenes treated by high hydrostatic pressure. International Journal of Food
Microbiology 79: 47-53.
Rivalain N, Roquain J & Demazeau G (2010) Development of high hydrostatic pressure in
biosciences: Pressure effect on biological structures and potential applications in
Biotechnologies. Biotechnology Advances 28: 659-672.
San Martín MF, Barbosa-Cánovas GV & Swanson BG (2002) Food processing by high
hydrostatic pressure. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42: 627-645.
60
Saucedo-Reyes D, Marco-Celdran A, Pina-Perez MC, Rodrigo D & Martinez-Lopez A
(2009) Modeling survival of high hydrostatic pressure treated stationary- and
exponential-phase Listeria innocua cells. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies 10: 135-141.
Smelt JPPM (1998) Recent advances in the microbiology of high pressure processing.
Trends in Food Science & Technology 9: 152-158.
Stringer M (2005) Summary report: Food safety objectives - role in microbiological food
safety management. Food Control 16: 775-794.
Stringer MF & Hall MN (2007) A generic model of the integrated food supply chain to aid
the investigation of food safety breakdowns. Food Control 18: 755-765.
Todd ECD & Notermans S (2011) Surveillance of listeriosis and its causative pathogen,
Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 22: 1484-1490.
Trujillo AJ, Capellas M, Saldo J, Gervilla R & Guamis B (2002) Applications of high-
hydrostatic pressure on milk and dairy products: a review. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies 3: 295-307.
van Schothorst M, Zwietering MH, Ross T, Buchanan RL & Cole MB (2009) Relating
microbiological criteria to food safety objectives and performance objectives. Food
Control 20: 967-979.
Vázquez-Boland JA, Domínguez-Bernal G, González-Zorn B, Kreft J & Goebel W (2001)
Pathogenicity islands and virulence evolution in Listeria. Microbes and Infection 3: 571-
584.
Vos P, Garrity G, Jones D, et al. (2009) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology: The
Firmicutes. Springer New York.
Wuytack EY, Boven S & Michiels CW (1998) Comparative study of pressure-induced
germination of Bacillus subtilis spores at low and high pressures. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 64: 3220-3224.
61
Yang B, Shi Y, Xia X, Xi M, Wang X, Ji B & Meng J (2012) Inactivation of foodborne
pathogens in raw milk using high hydrostatic pressure. Food Control 28: 273-278.
Yuste J, Mor-Mur M, Capellas M & Pla R (1999) Listeria innocua and aerobic mesophiles
during chill storage of inoculated mechanically recovered poultry meat treated with high
hydrostatic pressure. Meat Science 53: 251-257.
Yuste J, Mor-Mur M, Capellas M, Guamis B & Pla R (1998) Microbiological quality of
mechanically recovered poultry meat treated with high hydrostatic pressure and nisin.
Food Microbiology 15: 407-414.
Zhang HQ, Barbosa-Cánovas GV, Balasubramaniam VM, Dunne CP, Farkas DF & Juan
JTC (2011) Physical Processes. Nonthermal processing technologies for food, 3-97.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.